| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Enoch |
Posted - 21 May 2003 : 04:32:37
Hi,
A lot of the redemption practices use the existence of the Strawman as the foundation of much of their explanations. I understand the explanation of the creation of the Strawman as a way of using as a form of collateral in the 1930's (33?). For a few years now I've accepted it de facto. But after visiting Chris Hansen's website, he argues against its concept. He also argues against Bill of Exchange, the differentiation of all caps and mixed cases etc etc. Now I am not so sure about the actual act of the Strawman creation. Has anyone actually found the existence of the all caps Strawman or is the act of putting all names in caps a matter of convenience as described in Chris Hansen's site (www.familyguardian.tzo.com) ?
I've only seriously studied the redemption process the past couple of months. Before that I just accepted what was told to me w/o question which proved to be dangerous. So now I am starting to ask very basic questions which some may even consider rediculous. However, the answers to these questions will help me build a better understanding and provide a better foundation for other information which build on top of them.
-Enoch |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Inactive Member |
Posted - 01 Oct 2005 : 19:48:59
actually its the day of atonement, in the seventh month. |
| RevokeTheTrust |
Posted - 01 Oct 2005 : 19:15:53
Greetings and blessings on this blessed first Day of this tenth Month in the Year of Our Lord and King!
I've had quite the hiatus; on the run, a shepherd of no value; houseless, but Houseless, homeless, but
Homeless; no certain dwelling, no fixed address; transient; fluid; unknowable. Stuck with a Bible Code
and coerced into this CA. This forum is as though, before I was coerced to absence by
my captors.
Brother David, still eating the fruit of that condemned tree? I
think it oxymoronic for any said elitism; Christian elitism, you say? Is there any
elite mail as opposed to first-class postal mail? Is their elite first-class mail?
Religion is division, derived of a science to visit fruit to declare their infirmities
and contrive their grafting onto another branch or same;
I've agreed with all you say, yet when I discern religion from your words it appears as
mis-directed anger, and you try to counter disabilities thrown at you with disabilities?
If I were to apply a religion, I would say you and brother Charles have much in Common
religion-wise, as magnetic North and South. Same application, I never knew I was part
of a family until someone classified their religion for taxonomy equal to plants and
animals not nearly as sound mind. I say blessings to brother David, and blessings to
brother Charles; let Van Pelt be bonded to David Merrill, and patent an instrument of
ten strings [Psalm 92] emitted for the course of the performance, with a fixture branded
onto the instrument upside downward and the novation written to the obverse of the text; did
not brother Simon accomplish this? (ie, statement from maker needs to be read right-side up,
and endorsement needs to be read right-side up, and never both at once)
Besides that, what color hath the father painted for the edification of man: David Merrill
is a beautifull portrait! Such vibrant and vivid colors! It has some shadows that
tend to fade with growing knowledge, but his process is good if not for the other eye. ;-)
Nonetheless, I know a master sent on behalf of one father, and he was unshewn to
know curses when all that was to his appointing of the father was blessing and reproving
those thinking without blessing. Thereby as we all, came before him was a man walking
with stolen seed, walking not in truth, with unclean hands, did sew the father's seed
into soil. The predicament of the good master that came after him, as sent by the
father... well, unreal, Well drawn-out joy from an otherwise unenjoyable victory over
wicked worms shat among the tree roots! It manifest from my heart; There's the lowly
garden and two somewhat idle people were walking around tending the plantae and animaliae;
by prior-agreement, they exercised domain over most and forbidden to one; feasting on a
tree declared to Separate good from evil. That tree, unconventionally named, had one
purpose; to conceal truth relative to a form of lust and gluttony. That tree is now the
cornerstone of relativity, to the bereft of people that approach in the similar de jour.
It has continued today to conceal from the principle, by coverture; except the people can
only see CONDITION from the Condition of a condition. An affixed joy from a separate,
peculiar joy...
Blessed brother David, and a birth certificate salvaged by him; that is old news, that its
form is reprovable and [re]probate in your hands; it is an incomplete instrument, valuable to
the eye of the beholder, derived of an unknown tresspasser of the State of a state, grafted to
a perpresture created and held on behalf of unproved (man) feigning unsound-mind(corporation).
I've three apointments to various assemblies, with three records of that prodicle son, register
him for different jurisdictional performances. Christ is on water with the Spirit of God,
waiting with canons. I was annoyed at the code form for a third party in transitu on the bill
of lading, so I asked for a token from Grandmother Mundt for which may come after Christ, and
in forthcoming transmition from the reflection of the venue an operator would always interrupt
the order with a volley of stop-transmission code before the[.]true-name.
Looking into the leaves on that branch, as I anticipate you may agree; whomever hired to
trim the tree canderive not a prophit but a Condition more favorable than having climbed
the latter; after all, Who said lies are worth more than truth, to tax its value? That
is reflected de jour of that tree too. It was so in Rome; goodly, honest people, in a
desert surrounded by unfruitful trees and prayed upon by wolves preying for a prophet to
suppress from a branch from the trunk with two branches of a prior branch! One side casts
shadow upon the other, and same in return; a battle of the leaves to collect energy. The
truth in the matter, is neither consumed the other; both branches appeared by self-canibalistic
form of alienation and recursively.
As one man rushed through a forest to trim the trees, thence some of those trees were not
fit to burn and they drift down stream; one man built a house with those branches, another
man took an crooked branch and stood it upright to form the mast on a greater assembled debris
for which a sail could be fastened. Although not intent for sale, thereby witnessing, an
unappointed clerk setoff a patent on the master's behalf. Because the master didn't pay, they
called the magistrate to fasten the master on the mast for sale, to move into another venue.
Jesus, H... alienatated, counterfeit into the person, Christ, wherewith rescinded into the jolly
dark ages on the Christ ship when water was before light; his face at eventide on the water;
genesis, or Genesis [1:1,2,3] if God will.
So, here I sit on this bench, only afforded these three wheels on a self-assembled trike, no
rest on these postal roads, and there are no friends and which all self-proclaimed friends seeking
after me are unconcious; but what can I offer them for their numbed tresspass, but love and
evasion maneuvers?
Ahoy from my captain! As water splashed to that hell on this Earth, I
stab at thee dead with good deeds.
Gregory-Thomas |
| yardstick |
Posted - 28 Sep 2005 : 22:37:32
I post the following link for the edification of the eccelsia:
http://www.svpvril.com/dmjuristic.html
Some here may find it informative. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 16 Apr 2005 : 10:04:29
quote:
New Question: Is anyone dizzy yet?
Charles Bruce continues building his discussion forum by Cut-and-Paste from here. He says that David Merrill (Van-Pelt) is talking. Not true. I am David Merrill. That is what I was named.
I am not sure what goes through his mind in making the new construction. He is trying to create a legal name? Interesting.
There was a time when the Denver clerks in the US Courthouse got all like that.
Marty. I think you have stated the question already. Is DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT a trust entity? You tell me. In the quotation from (I believe) an abatement it is clear that 'if I were to choose' a legal name I would likely use the one suggested on the birth certificate. You are still the creator of DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT and David Merrill Van Pelt. Just like Charles created David Merrill (Van-Pelt). So it is not up to me to define these things you create.
There is the relevance of my Answer: Show me where.
quote:
(8) Restricted Appearance.
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to which there has issued process in rem, or process of attachment and garnishment, may be expressly restricted to the defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not been served.
If you can prove I have been using (that I created) any name, including my own, David Merrill, then you may expect me to fulfil any obligations to perform on the agreement. Even if I used "Donald Duck". So you or Charles would need to show me where I have used these alternate names - you would need to prove me nakar - foreigner or stranger. "Feign self to be another." That is the penumbra under which (HJR-192) debt currency and usury become real. One cannot use these things on the "son".
quote:
Mt 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mt 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
It is interesting that Charles Bruce knows his own name but alters mine into a fiction. He and his son have put several colorful names upon me. None of which are mine.
That is the point Marty. Christian elitism can only exist by constructing an 'in' or 'out' close, a fence. Charles may be trying to exclude me from his 'congregation' there. That might be why he constructed David Merrill (Van-Pelt).
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 14:08:24
Humor of course is invited.
I often view the interjection of jokes as distraction.
In between jokes though (I) clearly understand that Manuel knows what he is talking about.
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 13:26:33
I just thought of a STRAWMAN situation. I'll put it this way:
GRASS-HOPPA... snatch the pebble from my hand. The young boy turns around and walks, not jumps outta there.
I rememeber when I was a young boy, another boy would get teased by some young girls. The young girls would call him a pig. Well... as the years passed, the not so young boy told me that many times, back then, he thought he had a little squiggly tail 
For those of you who wonder why I make such childish remarks, well sometimes it gets a little too unbearable for me, and I try to bring some humor/amor back into this topic.
|
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 13:17:49
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
We are going around in circles....
quote:
David Merrill wrote two pages later:
Your question:
quote:
The question was and still is on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM when David Merrill was larger than "a little-bitty baby." did David Merrill refer to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as a trust entity?
Answer: Show me where.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Answer to David Merrill’s answer, which in fact was not an answer at all, but a question to a question that had already been linked above . . .
on 1/19/2005 4:20:28 PM in the Birth Certificates for Fictional Slaves topic at
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33&whichpage=5.
New Question: Is anyone dizzy yet?
David, please answer the former question.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:43:21
Yes indeed! The demand for an answer. That is arraignment.
But you must acknowledge the terms of Hebrews 11:1, that you have forsaken Rules of Evidence in your court, oh ye man of faith.
quote:
He 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Your question:
quote:
The question was and still is on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM when David Merrill was larger than "a little-bitty baby." did David Merrill refer to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as a trust entity?
Answer: Show me where.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:27:44
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Within quotations, do not change paragraph structure.
I have had problems with misquotes in the past. So please duplicate the above question without altering my quote. Then I will answer you.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation:
We have cut and paste the paragraph to the structure you requested.
Please answer the question!
Notice and Grace:
It would be appropriate and preferable for David Merrill to answer the questions straight forward on the Ecclesia.org Forum.
In response to our fair questions David has posted the following:
quote:
David Merrill also posted ….
You need to sit back for a moment and understand why you were being offensive to Admin. You were ousted from this forum.
It is not my place to speak for Admin and we might expect comment. . . . .
. . . . So you got shut out until you came around.
Now you are allowed back in, to write here. But it is clear to me you are dividing the parameters incorrectly. You do not yet understand why you were kept out. Your apology that allowed you back in is not in correct context. I hope you will and are allowed to stay. But try to understand what I am saying and Admin, add what you will.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Admin does not and has never communicated directly with us to the extent that we can recall.
Bondservant has communicated directly with us privately on more than one occasion.
Bondservant has expressed his appreciation to us and has indicated that he also would like to see David answer the questions to substantiate the claims he makes and to explain as Werner Maximilian so eloquently put it “what the heck” David Merrill is talking about.
These are not difficult questions that we have asked so far.
If Admin would like to communicate with us privately we welcome that.
It is our understanding that this website is financed and administered by Bondservant and Admin. It is our further understanding that this website is run by Bondservant, Admin and David Merrill.
We believe that Bondservant and Admin have the right to tell Cornerstone Foundation what he can and cannot do on this website.
It is our understanding that Cornerstone Foundation is currently well within all parameters heretofor set by Bondservant and Admin.
If we are violating any of the administrators directives, if they will notify us we will either amend our ways to please them or shake the dust from our feet and no longer ask questions here.
It is unlikely, but within the realm of possibility that David Merrill is Admin. If we are again removed from the membership of this forum without given a chance, by Admin, to amend our ways we may speculate that it is more likely that Admin is in fact David Merrill.
Admin has our permission to post either one or both of the letters we sent to him the last time we we locked out of Ecclesia.org, but only if he will post the letter in it’s entirety without editing.
If we are locked out of Ecclesia.org again, you may contact us at farmco7@yahoo.com or inquire by PM to other members of this forum to find where on the internet we are continuing, in good faith, to post David Merrill’s statements and soliticiting his straight forward response to those questions posed in good faith.
As we have stated in the past, it our hope that once the process David Merrill recommends has been analyzed it is our hope that we will find that it is well grounded in organic law. If so. It could benefit a lot of good people.
We believe it may well be that we will conclude this discussion with such favorable findings.
We thank David for all he does for all of us.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marty
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 11:07:34
Within quotations, do not change paragraph structure.
I have had problems with misquotes in the past. So please duplicate the above question without altering my quote. Then I will answer you.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Thank you for correcting by edit.
Answer:
|
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 10:32:28
Question #1: May a reader of average intelligence infer from your statement above that David Merrill believes and acknowledges that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a trust entity?
quote:
David Merrill answered the question in this way....
No. The paradigm shift I press upon you and upon the record of the courts (Readers) is simply that I was a little-bitty baby at the moment David Merrill Van Pelt or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT was suggested to me. That is not me forming or endorsing it.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
A "reader of average intelligence" will understand that David Merrill did not form or endorse the trust entity DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT when David Merrill was "a little-bitty baby."
The question was and still is on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM when David Merrill was larger than "a little-bitty baby." did David Merrill refer to DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT as a trust entity?
Followup Question #1: Does David Merrill, now understand why "we are going in circles" and who is responsible for the circular motion? |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 09:41:02
Question #1: May a reader of average intelligence infer from your statement above that David Merrill believes and acknowledges that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a trust entity?
No. The paradigm shift I press upon you and upon the record of the courts (Readers) is simply that I was a little-bitty baby at the moment David Merrill Van Pelt or DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT was suggested to me. That is not me forming or endorsing it.
Question #2: Would you, at this juncture, care to revise or clarify the statement you made before this court on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM? (emphasis mine)
Yes! You are acquiring testimony on the record. You are posturing as a court of record, a court of competent jurisdiction. Good!
And No. I will not revise my testimony but thank you for the offer. Readers pay attention to the generous notice and grace... common law, the forgiveness that I may have changed my mind since I stated what I said. This is the wisdom of Jesus at:
quote:
Mt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mt 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
And direct reflection of the Laws of Moses about notice and grace:
quote:
Ex 21:29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
It is gracious indeed that you would offer I might amend my testimony from the past. A woman I offered counsel was in a messy divorce proceeding and she was upon short and simple testimony pleading that she no longer endorsed the signature upon the marriage certificate - misnomer - I had taught her her name. The "judge" persisted, "Are you the person who marked these marks upon this document, a marriage certificate on this bench?"
Out of the Holy Spirit of God (I had not told her to say this) she said, "That was before I knew better!" The case fell apart within a few minutes and she was released from an ugly ongoing battle.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 09:16:30
quote:
David Merrill wrote . . . . .
on 1/19/2005 4:20:28 PM in the Birth Certificates for Fictional Slaves topic at http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=33&whichpage=5.
The following evidence of contract has no effect on me whatsoever. I have signed nothing "David M. Van Pelt" for well over a decade. If I wanted to use that trust entity I would sign "David Merrill dba DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT". My name is obviously "David Merrill" and I was born into the Van Pelt family. Notice my father's name is "Philip Jansen" and my mother is "Louanne"*. This paperwork is not even mine. I borrowed it from my mother to file it when I understood how it could be used to prove assumpsit. I suppose the certified copy you are looking at is mine because I paid for it at my clerk's office. But it is not mine until I say so. And I can disown it instantly if it suits me. Like that:. . .
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
Question #1: May a reader of average intelligence infer from your statement above that David Merrill believes and acknowledges that DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT is a trust entity?
Question #2: Would you, at this juncture, care to revise or clarify the statement you made before this court on 1/19/2005 at 4:20:28 PM? |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 08:26:54
In context of you and your wife participating on Charles' Christian Common Law website I figure you are speaking about this statement:
quote:
You like so many others will spin your wheels forever; burning up energy creating heat.
Or maybe you are speaking about my analysis of Charles Bruce in general. [I was in the audience during the Freeman lecture he broadcast. By the timing it was my Comptroller Warrant that triggered the Montana Freeman Standoff. The figures (look in the "Views" columns there) indicate Charles is definitely spinning his wheels trying to form a competing positive law jural society on the Internet. But I do not accuse Charles of being a fool. He is sick. Both he and his son are completely convinced I am an MK-ULTRA (Manchurian Candidate) agent. See Conspiracy Theory by Mel Gibson. That would in the current CIA Mind Control scenario mean that I was tortured as a child in ritual abuse. Until work product of Charles' crops up in my email or here, I am finished with him. So please leave us not to infer he is speaking through you, Oneisraelite, his agent.] There is a much longer leash for insult over on "Psychoanalyzing David Merrill".
Back to the first presumption. That I call Marty a fool for spinning his wheels. I did not feel that way when I said it. Morelike the anomia has effected him and I am using his boldness to confront me directly with intelligent and scientific questioning to bring forth my point of view more clearly.
Thank you Marty. Your intrepid nature, your courage to confront me is welcomed. I have secured already "quiet rubber stamp" of the chief district judge in the district* of Colorado. I plainly asked of Lewis Babcock to explain what if anything I might have incorrect in my scenario about the law (reality) and he went silent. That, as I understand it is proper process.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* From the Statutes at Large: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Act_-_districts.jpg
Act of 1789 – debts functional
P.S. In response to a comment you made on Charles' website. I am sovereign. The FBI is my agency to use as I wish, at my pleasure. Charles' illness is not allowed to injure others with the same. If I see the "View" figures become alarming, I will shut that site down.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Rubber_Stamp_2.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Quiet_Default_Judgment_2.jpg
Quiet Rubber Stamp
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 15 Apr 2005 : 06:45:23
"...and whoever shall say,
'You fool!'
shall be in danger of the fire of Gehinnom."
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 16:22:45
Psyco-logical War-fare is a good way for me to know of it... and when I write "it," I mean - it.
The clip on the private attorn-ey explains it pretty well both of the outside parameters and the inside. Its like a parabolical sense/microphone, contrary to diabolical blindness/deathness. The true life blood living man. His Image.
I am,
Manuel |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 15:20:19
Marty;
It is your perspective that stultifies you seeing many of my points. It is a paradigm shift; a change of perspective that I keep pressing on you.
You say that someone was "hoping" that I would become chattel in the Strawman name. And that may be true enough but that comes out of an "us" and "them" perspective - that I could possibly have been registered in a suppositional wagering scheme (Tontine) for international bankers in cartel collecting on life annuities, civil and actual death (= debt action in assumpsit). You like so many others will spin your wheels forever; burning up energy creating heat. Look at the bill of exchange again - I am the epitome of that banking cartel.
Listen to Vern. He has put his finger on it so eloquently. Tell the truth.
That kind of childlike simplicity makes me feel so complicated. In fact the first time at the ER when I realized that they had treated me on my wealth/life-bonding instead of my endorsement of civil death, I was walking down the corridor and it nearly felt like an out-of-body experience. I realized it was just telling the truth that had such a freeing effect. The truth had set me free from all that Tontine-on-human-flesh-and-bone junk you keep dredging up.
Here is what really happened Marty. While reading the contract I noticed the patient's name was (mis)spelled "MERRILL, DAVID". So I corrected that.
The reasons behind the misnomer are inconsequential once you have made the paradigm shift. I think it is probably the "conspicuous" requirement for notices in commerce. Sorry Redemption guys - the STRAWMAN is nothing more than a silly fantasy - a faulty model that only works at certain times in certain conditions. You have been trying to redeem a phantom.
You have again indulged in fantasy by bringing up DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. That is still your creation, not mine.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
| Werner Maximilian |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 14:07:16
I know in my case, it's more just a desire to be truthful than anything else.
Avoiding contracts is a nice side benefit. |
| Cornerstone Foundation |
Posted - 14 Apr 2005 : 13:46:29
quote:
David Merrill wrote . . . . .
If I require a legal name, I would more than likely use the general public trust already in place since 1933 [The New Deal], and go with "David Merrill Van Pelt" which of course would come off any cash register and tax receipt in the conspicuous (UCC) form, "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT".
David,
We noticed on the hospital agreement that the hospital had listed a form of a STRAWMAN name assigned to you (i.e. MERRILL, DAVID).
We understand that the STRAWMAN name MERRILL, DAVID is a derivative of the, “DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT”, STRAWMAN name that someone somewhere once put on their records hoping that David Merrill, the real live flesh and blood man would some day begin to use that STRAWMAN name and by using it become surety for the STRAWMAN in their way of seeing things.
We further understand that MERRILL, DAVID and DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT are both misnomers for the flesh and blood man.
We understand that you, David, did not and do not wish to be surety for those STRAWMEN and that is precisely why you made the correction on the hospital admission form.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 12 Apr 2005 : 17:42:59
Some research turned the true origin of the registration prankster "Dr. Fill", if the number Charles gave is correct, to be Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It routed through a final server in Denver. So I doubt it will happen again since it will be easy with investigating authority to pin the prankster.
To summarize, in light of the above report about the origins, is that even on Charles' site where he promotes the "people" docrine of the Montana Freemen I have now been labelled the "person" who responds to entity "Dr. Fill". That is why I wanted to play this out for the people here on this Topic and forum. Note that "David Merrill" is nearly always misspelled there; typically to "Mr. Merrill" or "Merill" etc. - misnomer - sound familiar? [traffic court.]
Also, there are quite a few folks reading that Topic there, "Leroy Michael of the Schwietzer Clan and David Merrill". So you might see that Charles has broadcast my request he stop broadcasting the email address I write from. He calls it "More Merrill Whining". I even quote his invitation to write him "private email". In this forum, to broadcast a PM will get you into trouble. So listen.
Note that I was careful never to respond for Dr. Fill. That would have been to click and try to unregister Dr. Fill. Anything like that. If Charles knew what he was doing - let's say there was no prankster or that Charles called someone in collusion in Sioux Falls. That was the objective. To get me to "appear" for the entity Dr. Fill - the STRAWMAN. I never did jockey my mouse like I was Dr. Fill but reading over there, because I am in the general area of Denver, the last routed server, then I must be the "person" identifying himself as Dr. Fill. Such distortions are familiar to me. Faulty grabs for jurisdiction; falsely declaring an appearance has cured jurisdiction.*
[Jockeying my mouse like I was Dr. Fill is quite similar to opening a letter to "Dr. Fill" found in 'my' (federal enclave) mailbox. I just appeared as Dr. Fill or I am intentionally opening someone else's mail. Think about it. So Marty; does the STRAWMAN really exist until it is endorsed? Now do you understand why I refused to answer your demand (complaint) that I define the entity you created? If people can get and keep a grasp on the metaphysical interplays of process between reality and fiction, then a lot of the junk will be dispelled; it will disappear from existence.]
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv
clip about private attorney
The same thing was demonstrated when Marty became frustrated, thinking I was evading his demand for a "yes" or "no" answer - that I must help him define something he created here on these Pages; DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT. I actually doubt Marty was trying for an appearance and subsequent jurisdiction (authority) but more Marty assumed he had the authority (probably by conditioning). I was pointing out DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT was his creation not mine more for academic reasons - to make the point about jurisdiction. [I have no worries about perceived jurisdiction from either Marty or Charles.] The conditioning is really crux in the paranoid illusion they may do whatever they want. Charles thinks he may do whatever he wants anyway. The same elitist Christian Common Law that burned the Montana Freemen. [I was there. I watched and even participated. It is tempting to revert to the term delirium instead of delusions. The delusions are so strong and adamantly protected by the victims/patients that they might as well be caused (or are causing as a result) by chemical imbalances and psychotomimetic (LSD) or psychotropic pharmaceuticals.]
Marty's creation was easy for me to spot. DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT a/k/a David Merrill [inferring my true name is an alias] has been used against me several times. I can spot a prompt for appearance from miles there. So be assured that I am not Dr. Fill. I had nothing to do with its creation. If I require a legal name, I would more than likely use the general public trust already in place since 1933 [The New Deal], and go with "David Merrill Van Pelt" which of course would come off any cash register and tax receipt in the conspicuous (UCC) form, "DAVID MERRILL VAN PELT".
Regards,
David Merrill.
* It is very important to impress upon the Readers that Charles has the transparent ambition of creating a court system. In his mind he already has - and in truth he has [we are all courts of varying competence]. He titles one of his Posts, where he broadcast one of my private emails to him, "Merrill Pleads Innocence". Charles Bruce understands how processes work enough to stage my arraignment in his court system. What many gullible readers may not understand (to their own detriment) is that the answer has to come from the (alleged) defendant's mouth, not the court's mouth. [Leroy told the judge who entered "not guilty", "I object and take exception. I have not hired you as my attorney."] Thank God Charles has no enforcement powers and that the privatized "Christian" common law Charles spouts has no future. http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=88&whichpage=7 Apr 14 2005 : 09:18:21 AM. I feel Charles has been properly notified that at the first sign of injury, (so far his rants are simply making my points for me. Many of the few participants on his site are people who have lost arguments with me here in the past) his insideous Freeman doctrine website can easily be shut down. He is not allowed to use cyberspace to hurt people.
P.S. If you write something to Charles Bruce in private beware he feels justified in broadcasting it. I have been warned to just ignore him but felt it edifying to Readers here and there to get some testimony out of his mouth to warn you all.
|
|
|
